why is not 35mm f1.4 ZM lens made?

haagen_dazs

haagen_dazs

Well-known
Local time
1:36 PM
Joined
Mar 13, 2006
Messages
878
Zeiss is a healthy competition to Leica (just so that no one company will be a monopoly)
And Zeiss is doing a great job in competing with Leica in the optical quality department (And cost too!) thumbs up.

I wonder why Zeiss did not make a fast 35mm f1.4 to compete with the 35lux...
Is there something in the history of Zeiss that I do not know?
please enlighten.
thank you!

edit : pardon my bad grammer in the title. i was typing too fast.
 
Last edited:
I don't know if it's the history as much as the limits of their existing lens designs. There are some who feel that creating a Biogon with f/2 capabilities was stretching the limits of the design. They may have gone this route because people were underwhelmed with the performance of the 35/2 Planar for the Contax G. Or they may have wanted to go with a look that was different than Leica - & a Planar would have been just another double Gauss.

A faster 35 may have involved more R&D than they wanted to invest into a niche market & in the end they would have arrived at the same place where Leica already is & at the same price as well. The objective seems to be to make their classic designs available in M-mount. Given that they are tweaking existing designs, they can save on R&D, thereby offering these lenses at competitive prices.

Historically, the only lenses faster than f/2 that Zeiss has developed in 135 format are the 50/1.5 Sonnar & the 75/1.4 Biotar - at least, as far as I Know. Other than that early breakthrough with the Sonnar, speed has not been their major emphasis.
 
Commercial considerations, presumably. Much investment in computing and manufacturing, only limited returns.
 
Huck Finn said:
Historically, the only lenses faster than f/2 that Zeiss has developed in 135 format are the 50/1.5 Sonnar & the 75/1.4 Biotar - at least, as far as I Know.
Click to expand...

The Contarex and Contax SLRs are historical 135 format cameras.

Both featured f/1.4 Zeiss lenses: 55 and 85mm for the Contarex; 35, 50 and 85 for the Contax (which also had 50/1.7, 55/1.2 and 85/1.2). The f/1.4 lenses and a 50/1.8 were also available for the Rolleiflex SL 35, 2000 (which was originally a Zeiss Ikon-Voigtlander design) and their variants.

Even the short-lived AF Contax N series had 50 and 85 f/1.4 Zeiss lenses.

Zeiss Jena also made the 50/1.8, 55/1.4, 75/1.4, 80/1.8 Pancolars and a 75/1.5 Biotar in M42, as well as 50/1.4, 50/1.8 and 80/1.8 for the Praktica B-mount.

The most important reason why there is no ZM 35/1.4 Distagon is high cost (and by extension, low projected sales). It will probably suffer long delays like the 15 and 85 ZM lenses too. :p
 
Last edited:
From a consumer's point of view, another possible reason is that Zeiss learned from Cosina and Leica. VC 35/1.2 is big. The Summilux 35/1.4 is not compact either... This is one main reason that drove me away from the fast lens. They tends to remain on the shelf most of the time until you need the extra stop. I'm curious on the ratio of fast lens sales to f/2 lens sales figures.

That said, I do have serious Noctilust!!! Wish I could afford one though.... :D
 
Mazurka said:
The Contarex and Contax SLRs are historical 135 format cameras.

Both featured f/1.4 Zeiss lenses: 55 and 85mm for the Contarex; 35, 50 and 85 for the Contax (which also had 50/1.7, 55/1.2 and 85/1.2). The f/1.4 lenses and a 50/1.8 were also available for the Rolleiflex SL 35, 2000 (which was originally a Zeiss Ikon-Voigtlander design) and their variants.

Even the short-lived AF Contax N series had 50 and 85 f/1.4 Zeiss lenses.

Zeiss Jena also made the 50/1.8, 55/1.4, 75/1.4, 80/1.8 Pancolars and a 75/1.5 Biotar in M42, as well as 50/1.4, 50/1.8 and 80/1.8 for the Praktica B-mount.

The most important reason why there is no ZM 35/1.4 Distagon is high cost (and by extension, low projected sales). It will probably suffer long delays like the 15 and 85 ZM lenses too. :p
Click to expand...

What wuld be the point in making SLR lenses in RF mount? I was obviously talking about the Zeiss history in RF lens design.
 
Huck Finn said:
What wuld be the point in making SLR lenses in RF mount? I was obviously talking about the Zeiss history in RF lens design.
Click to expand...

Well I never claimed to be a mind-reader.:rolleyes: That particular piece of "history" (as if it was the only thing Zeiss ever did for the 135 format) you referred to ended in the 1960s, after which Zeiss made interchangeable lenses only for SLRs for 30 years, until they introduced the G system with Kyocera.

Many of those lenses I quoted are Planars and Distagons. Certainly doesn't mean those are SLR-only constructions -- they ARE used in the present ZM range as well as the Biogon.

And don't forget Leica does and have been "making SLR lenses in RF mount" (or vice versa) for a couple of decades now.
 
Last edited:
Mazurka said:
And don't forget Leica does and have been "making SLR lenses in RF mount" (or vice versa) for a couple of decades now.
Click to expand...
Huh???? Who are you quoting? Sounds like a bushism to me. Hasselblad's been making 6x6 lenses in 645 mount, too, I guess :cool:
 
LightWave said:
From a consumer's point of view, another possible reason is that Zeiss learned from Cosina and Leica. VC 35/1.2 is big. The Summilux 35/1.4 is not compact either... This is one main reason that drove me away from the fast lens. They tends to remain on the shelf most of the time until you need the extra stop. I'm curious on the ratio of fast lens sales to f/2 lens sales figures.

That said, I do have serious Noctilust!!! Wish I could afford one though.... :D
Click to expand...

Yes, my 35/1.4 Summilux ASPH is big, but way smaller than the CV 35/1.2. The pre-ASPH Summilux was smaller, and my CV 40/f1.4 is especially small. If Cosina can come up with a formula for a small fast lens, Zeiss - with their history and R&D capabilities - should be able to improve on it.

Does anyone know if there are inherent limitations to the Sonnar design that prevent it from being applied to the 35mm focal length? Even with modern high-index glass?

- John
 
So...the simple answer is...because Zeiss hasn't computed one? Very logical to me. Can't sell something you don't have. Unless you're Microsnot, of course.
 
I had the 35 1.4 Distagon in Rollei mount and wasn't impressed with it's performance. I was larger than my 35 CV Nokton.
 
Gabriel M.A. said:
Huh???? Who are you quoting? Sounds like a bushism to me. Hasselblad's been making 6x6 lenses in 645 mount, too, I guess :cool:
Click to expand...

Next time, try reading the whole thread before jumping in: it was Huck Finn who said "making SLR lenses in RF mount" (or vice versa) as if it's impossible, worthless or never been done. :rolleyes:

Then, go look up Leica's 90/2.8 2nd version (R and M), the current 50/2 (R and M), the 1st and 2nd versions 135/2.8 (R and M), to name just four.
 
Last edited:
foto_fool said:
Does anyone know if there are inherent limitations to the Sonnar design that prevent it from being applied to the 35mm focal length?
Click to expand...

The Contax T3 Sonnar lens is 35/2.8, its predecessor on the T/T2 was 38/2.8.
 
Last edited:
A 35mm Sonnar on an M-mount body would likely be too short for ergonomic focusing and aperture rings -- after all, it's a telephoto design.

And look at all the fuss about focus shift on the 50/1.5. A 35mm Sonnar with the same speed would be an even bigger headache to design. I don't think you can employ floating elements on such a lens either -- unless you abandon the classic Sonnar construction.

Traditional wideangles from Zeiss are Biogons, but light fall-off would be too much for a speed of f/1.4. It's no surprise that both Leica and Cosina's current fast 35s are retrofocal.
 
Last edited:
It is not due to a lack of experience that Zeiss does not make high speed lenses. Zeiss makes very high quality Cine lenses of f1.3 and 1.4 for movie production. Yes, these lenses are big, but they are excellent and the choice of many professionals in the motion picture industry. Zeiss also made the fastest 35mm lens ever. It was an f0.7 developed for NASA, which was used by Stanley Kubrick on Barry Lyndon. So it is definitely not a question of know-how.
 
I've done a great deal of 35mm cine work and shot the Zeiss super speed lenses many times. They are excellent by cine standards and probabvly the best and should be for the cost. If Leica owners think they're paying high prices for Leica glass they should price a set of Zeiss 35mm cine primes. The catch is they won't cover full frame 35mm still format and by still lens standards they're not as good. Take a 35mm cine frame and enlarge it and you can easily see they're lower preformance. For IMAX 70mm they used Hasselblad lenses at one time and some Pentax 6x7 glass. I don't know what they're using now. I've been out of the cine business too long.
 
The answer is probably economics. The rangefinder market is small and the lens would be so expensive few would buy it. Why build a lens knowing you are going to lose money.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom